Boilerplate Language: Worrying about the OGL (Part 4)

[Snarf Zagyg]

How about the idea that these clauses being in tens of millions of contracts as being a problem in and of itself?

It being in this contract (OGL 1.2) is just a single instance of that problem.

How about naw? We good?

 

[SoonRaccoon]

How about naw? We good?

It certainly means the conversation is over.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

How about naw? We good?

Actually, no, not yet. I added an edit that you may have missed, and I'd like to know your specific response.

 

[Jer]

That said, I don't think that Wizards is misunderstanding what an open license is. I also don't think that are pretending. I think it goes to Section 9 of OGL 1.0(a)- they are calling this OGL 1.2 not because it's an open license, but because it's an updated version of the prior license.

That's the whole ballgame. That's why they are keeping the name. This is the new and authorized license. Otherwise, they would just call this GSL 2.0 or something.

I almost included that in my post - that I think it's all about keeping the name so that Section 9 can be met with the new license. But then I thought "do I really know enough about this to state that that would actually work?" and decided I'd just go with "pretending it's an open license" to cover that to some degree.

It all makes sense, and having a lawyer confirm that it's a possible strategy is both bad and good. Good because I feel like I see why they're doing it, bad because as someone who has been a proponent of open licensing for all sorts of things over the years it makes me angry to see the verbiage misused for something so cynical.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I almost included that in my post - that I think it's all about keeping the name so that Section 9 can be met with the new license. But then I thought "do I really know enough about this to state that that would actually work?" and decided I'd just go with "pretending it's an open license" to cover that to some degree.

It all makes sense, and having a lawyer confirm that it's a possible strategy is both bad and good. Good because I feel like I see why they're doing it, bad because as someone who has been a proponent of open licensing for all sorts of things over the years it makes me angry to see the verbiage misused for something so cynical.

Well, I obviously can't definitively tell you that it's their strategy, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

Because it's not an open license. So the only reason I can see to keep re-using the name is to try and keep it within the framework (an updated version) of the prior license.

 

[Dausuul]

How about the idea that these clauses (edit: these clauses being ones that limit access to the courts, for example) being in tens of millions of contracts as being a problem in and of itself?

That is a problem. But it is not one that will be solved or meaningfully addressed by anyone on this forum, and most of us aren't here for general political debate.

It being in this contract (OGL 1.2) is just a single instance of that problem.

That clause has no meaningful impact on this contract. So while it may illustrate the extent of the problem, it is not an instance of it, and it's not in any way relevant to the topic under discussion, which is the thing Wizards calls OGL 1.2 (a name I prefer not to endorse).

 

[Jer]

Well, I obviously can't definitively tell you that it's their strategy, but it's the only thing that makes sense.

Sure, I didn't mean that. I meant more that you think it's actually a strategy that they could be using rather than a "no, silly person, that's not how the law works" which is what often happens when lawyers engage with randos ideas on the internet.

Because it's not an open license. So the only reason I can see to keep re-using the name is to try and keep it within the framework (an updated version) of the prior license.

I mean, there's always the chance that they just don't know what they're doing. Incompetence and ignorance are always potential reasons for just about anything

But I suspect the lawyers that Hasbro hires to draft licenses for them would know what they're doing, so I also assume they have a purpose for it rather than it being sloppiness or accidental.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, no, not yet. I added an edit that you may have missed, and I'd like to know your specific response.

The class limitation is a nothing burger. Class actions usually give the class very, very little and the attorneys a whole heck of a lot. I mean, yay, I won a free month at some gym because of something or other, but I'm going to guess that the attorneys got a lot more than that. Another time I could have gotten a buck and change if I had gone through the trouble to pay for an envelope and a stamp and mailed my claim back in time! Woohoo!!

The "You can't use substantial similarity or access to prove we took stuff from you, but we can use it on all you guys" is actually bad in my opinion. As are the morality clause and the severance clause.

 

[Pedantic]

Yep. It's almost like I wrote, repeatedly, that this is not an open license.

That said, I don't think that Wizards is misunderstanding what an open license is. I also don't think that are pretending. I think it goes to Section 9 of OGL 1.0(a)- they are calling this OGL 1.2 not because it's an open license, but because it's an updated version of the prior license.

That's the whole ballgame. That's why they are keeping the name. This is the new and authorized license. Otherwise, they would just call this GSL 2.0 or something.

So, are you making a case that it's a mistake to focus on the individual provisions that are inappropriate to an open license instead of the primary issue that this isn't an open license?

I think mainly everyone is struggling with what's actionable about this. If what we want, an open environment as like what's existed under the 1.0(a) world as possible, does it even make sense to take umbrage at individual terms that violate our expectations, or is the basic structure of the license the problem?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, are you making a case that it's a mistake to focus on the individual provisions that are inappropriate to an open license instead of the primary issue that this isn't an open license?

I think mainly everyone is struggling with what's actionable about this. If what we want, an open environment as like what's existed under the 1.0(a) world as possible, does it even make sense to take umbrage at individual terms that violate our expectations, or is the basic structure of the license the problem?

So I am not the King of Everyone (.... yet ....), but I view this pretty simply.

Either you want Hasbro to provide an Open license, or that's not as big of a concern as just having something everyone agrees on.

Because if you want it to be an open license, this it's just a category error to focus on individual provisions of the OGL 1.2. It's not an open license.

But if you resigned to the fact that Hasbro is not going to provide an open license, then what you're trying to do is get the best possible deal you can. Which means something along the lines of the following:

A. As much as possible in terms of "mechanics" and even some expression released under the CC.
B. Giving feedback to revise the terms of the OGL 1.2 to ensure that it will be palatable. This would include, for example, reforming the severance clause to specify what terms are fundamental to the contract and, in addition, making it mandatory (not discretionary) as to what happens if those specific terms are found to be invalid et al. And having some mechanism in the morality clause to ensure that either there is some independent check, or that it has standards that can be adjudicated. That sort of stuff.


But yeah, if you are demanding an open license, complaining about the provisions of OGL 1.2 is similar to someone who is allergic to dogs complaining that there is a particular dog that licks them when they choose to hang out, every day, for 12 hours at the dog park.

It's not an open license.